"Since you write in your TOS post "Criticism of our data and arguments is certainly allowed", I have a few points:1] On page II of the introduction, you make much of the fact that Sec 305 (i) of the Space Act includes the clause "The Administration shall be considered a defense agency of the United States for the purpose of Ch 17, Title 35 of the United States Code". Are you aware that Title 35 is exclusively concerned with US Govt policy in respect of patentable inventions by Govt employees, and has no conceivable application to photography of the moon or artifacts retrieved from the moon? If you are aware of this, don't you consider it would have been more honest to point that out in your text? If you were not aware of this when you wrote your intro, I have now made you aware of it and you can verify it with a few google-clicks. Will you add a correction at next edition?"
Are you aware how completely wrong you are?
According to this section of the Title 35 code: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode35/usc_sec_35_00000100----000-.html
(a) The term “invention” means invention or discovery [emphasis added].”
Obviously, any bona fide alien artifacts discovered by Apollo, either in the form of NASA photographic evidence of same, or actual samples of ET technology brought back from the lunar surface by the Apollo crews, would clearly fall under the authority of Title 35, according to this specific language. So, again -- you are completely, utterly, totally wrong.
I guess I don’t need to make a correction for the revised edition after all, do I expat?
But, I really appreciate you pointing everyone else to this key section of the Space Act, which makes our legal case air tight -- against NASA's supposed "scientific openness," certainly when it comes to any genuine "extraterrestrial technology" it clandestinely discovered and brought home.
There are a number of frames, like various versions of AS10-32-4822, which were blacked out in the photographic catalogs and\or pilfered from the desk of the NASA administrator back in the 1970’s that have never before been published. We know this because we have been the only ones in possession of the originals. It’s all in the book.
This statement is not “in error,” within the context of our book. Since we place a great deal of emphasis on the landing site selection, and since El-Baz had the greatest influence on that, he was a lot more important than the guys who oversaw the design process of the spacecraft. Who do you think had more influence on picking the landing site for Apollo 11? Low? Mueller? Gilruth? Or El-Baz?
I see no reason to correct a “fact” which is merely your uninformed opinion. Nice try though.
Perhaps you should do more thorough research before embarrass yourself further.